Wisconsin native, conservative critic of everything.
"Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God." ---G K Chesterton
"The only objective of Liberty is Life" --G K Chesterton
"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions" --G K Chesterton
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Friday, February 10, 2012

SS,DD: Obozo "Compromises" With No Change at All

You've all read the "news" stories about Obozo's 'compromise' on tearing up the 1st Amendment vis-a-vis abortifacients and contraceptives.

The head of some Episcopal organization wa on with Laura Ingraham tonight gushing over how pleased she was with said "compromise" and Obama/ObamaCare in general. The catholic nun that loved the Stupak sellout was saying much the same.

This was nothing more than to get the usual suspects to be useful idiots again.

I am not Catholic, but adhere to the "first they came for..." philosophy. My opinion of Obummer are much the same.

Obama's compromise is mere sophistry, Satan's smoke on the wind. But well trained chimpanzees (otherwise known as liberals) love that smoke. I suppose that the difference between it and burning marijuana must be insignificant.=================Obama"s HHS MandateBEFORE Compromise:1. Church pays for insurance2. Insurance covers free morning after pills=================Obama"s HHS MandateAFTER Compromise:1. Church pays for insurance2. Insurance covers free morning after pills=================

Those state laws have broad conscience exemptions. And this mandate is a brand spanking new rule. Which he knows of course, so te "above te law" comment is specious.

I didn't kow his brother was a PP honcho. Makes more sense now. Making someone else give away the freebie pills will help their bottom line allowing the taxpayer money to further subsidize the baby killing machine and the honcho big salaries

The bishops are calling phooey on the alleged accommodation, note that the Obimmer admin never even called them...

These changes require careful moral analysis, and moreover, appear subject to some measure of change. But we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer’s plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.

We just received information about this proposal for the first time this morning; we were not consulted in advance. Some information we have is in writing and some is oral. We will, of course, continue to press for the greatest conscience protection we can secure from the Executive Branch. But stepping away from the particulars, we note that today’s proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions. In a nation dedicated to religious liberty as its first and founding principle, we should not be limited to negotiating within these parameters. The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services.

We will therefore continue—with no less vigor, no less sense of urgency—our efforts to correct this problem through the other two branches of government. For example, we renew our call on Congress to pass, and the Administration to sign, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. And we renew our call to the Catholic faithful, and to all our fellow Americans, to join together in this effort to protect religious liberty and freedom of conscience for all.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen said, "The rosary is the book of the blind, where souls see and there enact the greatest drama of love the world has ever known; it is the book of the simple, which initiates them into mysteries and knowledge more satisfying than the education of other men; it is the book of the aged, whose eyes close upon the shadow of this world, and open on the substance of the next. The power of the rosary is beyond description."

I believe Anon at 10:35 started the name-calling with well trained chimpanzees (otherwise known as liberals)

Let's hope your brother has another job lined up.

My brother does not work for Planned Parenthood and he was not a "honcho". He volunteered at a PP clinic 20 years ago. He gave of his time to help people. (And he had nothing to do with abortions.)

I ran the numbers the other day and found that given the number of PP clinics in the US, the number of abortions performed and the number of employees, that the average clinic would be doing 1.6 abortions a day (assuming 5 days a week). With 27,000 employees, there must be a heck of a lot of people sitting around doing nothing if they are indeed an "abortion mill."

Those state laws have broad conscience exemptions.

Some are broader, some are less broad. Learn your facts.

And this mandate is a brand spanking new rule. Which he knows of course, so te "above te law" comment is specious.

It's new in PPACA but not in the country. Regardless, your second sentence here is nonsensical. The issue at hand is exemptions in the future so it doesn't matter if the rule is new or not. The above the law comment comes from Antonin Scalia.

Making someone else give away the freebie pills will help their bottom line allowing the taxpayer money to further subsidize the baby killing machine and the honcho big salaries

Oh, so this is all about shifting the burden for contraception from Planned Parenthood to the church, huh? So Planned Parenthood can make more money? Or increase the number of "babies" they are murdering? Or pay the executives more for doing so?

which protects the rights of free expression of religion regardless of whether or not that particular religion employs people.

The Catholic church can express all it wants. Apparently only 2% of its women members are listening.

It's called being an "adult" something clearly lost on Obama, Jim, and 99.9% of liberals.

Speaking of being an adult, Amy...an adult would understand that anyone who gets healthcare insurance through their employer or through their school IS paying for their prescriptions themselves, either at part of their premium payments or the employee benefit that is a condition of their employment. Or from their tuition or student fees. Nobody employee or student is being "given" their prescriptions.

Jim, a serious question here, no bs. You put babies in quotes. I'm curious. At an early stage, the baby looks human, has discernible human features, we are told can feel pain, has a heart beat, and in damn near every sense, is alive. My question is simply this. Forgetting all the legalese, and all the other crap, please tell me, from your perspective, how this child should be in quotes? That it doesn't deserve protection from it's execution for a "crime" it didn't commit. I use that terminology as in many cases, abortion is done for expediency, because someone isn't 'ready', or they made a 'mistake'. Those are usually the reasons, aren't they? That's why I want to know what YOU think. No name calling, no insults. I would like to know.

That assumes that PP clients are in a position to get health care coverage from their employer or school. They may not be working or may not be students. By the way, apparently the new rule only applies to new policies.

Under ObummerCare everyone is required to purchase insurance, so ther will be no need for PP "services" other than abortion. At least until the coming mandate that all hospitals, including those operated by churches, will be required to perform them. At which point, the first amendment will be fully gutted.

My question is simply this. Forgetting all the legalese, and all the other crap, please tell me, from your perspective, how this child should be in quotes? That it doesn't deserve protection from it's execution for a "crime" it didn't commit. I use that terminology as in many cases, abortion is done for expediency, because someone isn't 'ready', or they made a 'mistake'. Those are usually the reasons, aren't they? That's why I want to know what YOU think. No name calling, no insults. I would like to know.

Thank you, Billiam, for a civil tone. Refreshing.

The reason that I put babies in quotes is that I believe the terminology used by you and like-minded people (I won't use "ilk" like Dad does) is used to incite, not to debate.

In your own words here you use the terms "execution" and "crime" and others use "murder" and "baby-killers". These words do not persuade. They incite.

The fact is abortion is 1)a medical procedure and 2)legal. It is not "murder", it is not an "execution".

There is no question that a fertilized egg is alive. That's beside the point. You can call it a baby or a child if you like. Many people do not and the law does not consider the fetus as having the full "rights" of a live, "walking-around person" as Antonin Scalia put it.

In the end, it doesn't matter what I call it. As I have said many times, women have always had abortions and women WILL always have abortions. For whatever reason. You can't stop them. The Church can't stop them.

Every month every fertile woman who is not pregnant passes a potential "baby". Many of those instances are of a fertilized egg. Do you morn the "death" of the "baby" that "died" in these instances? I mean, they are human aren't they? They are living "beings", aren't they?

Or is that up to you to define and decide? What about freedom of conscience?

So Jim, you want to give me a cutting from your money tree. I need to start growing one in the back to pay for all this free stuff the government says we all have a right to check our consciences at the door for.

Typical liberal speak. When they're in the minority, it's the end of the world. When ideologies they simply don't like are in the minority, hey, that's cool.

Who needs religious freedom anyway?

I hope Catholic institutions ignore this ruling. Time to take a leaf out of the left's playbook and simply keep doing what we want in spite of what our supposed "betters" think we should be doing. Just massive civil disobedience.

You want birth control? Pony up the money and pay for it yourself.

Anyone who can't, or won't, should keep it in their pants and stop bloviating about how the Catholics are wrong.

The free health care and contraceptives silly. Isn't that what liberals want? Government-granted rights like birth control pills and other prevetative care are free for everyone? The money has to be growing somewhere...

The free health care and contraceptives silly. Isn't that what liberals want?

No. Who said that? Nobody thinks health care is free. There are many ways to provide it but it can never be free.

Mom and Amy. This whole issue has nothing to do with FREE anything. It has to do with insurance coverage. Insurance companies don't give ANYTHING away for free. People who work at hospitals or anyplace else typically get their health care covered by insurance. Usually they pay part and their employer pays part in lieu of salary or wage compensation. Either way, the insured is paying for it. Same with students. Their coverage is paid for by their tuition and fees.

So what is this "free" thing you are talking about. The government has NOT mandated that contraception be free. It has mandated that preventative medications be covered without copay as part of the insurance policy an employee gets whether they work for a church or a strip club. The insurer will certainly charge premiums that will cover contraception with no copay.

My first thought was, “Surely the Journal knows better than this. Why would they headline this story as if Obama had, in fact, backed off on the mandate? What are they, USA Today?”

The headline doesn’t reflect reality.

As Ed Morrissey pointed out yesterday, Obama has merely shifted the basis for the mandate. The insurance companies – I use that term loosely – will be required to provide “free” contraception services to the insured who work for Catholic employers. This means that the premiums paid by Catholic employers will fund contraception services. And the overall mandate to purchase the insurance will continue.

I expected better of WSJ. I expect the editors to recognize the significance of distinctions like this, and refrain from using headlines that bolster a counterfactual narrative. Obama has not retreated. He has moved laterally and reset the defenses for the same strategic position.

And in fact, he has done more than that. I referred above to using the term “insurance companies” loosely, because Obama has just made crystal clear that “insurance” is not what we will be paying for under ObamaCare. With actual “insurance,” the insured cannot expect to line up for “free” goodies mandated – arbitrarily, and at any time – by the government. An insurance contract is finite and specific. The insured pays a premium; the insurer makes defined pay-outs in the case of a contingency. In most cases, for the average person, the contingency is a major personal setback of some kind: an auto accident, the house burning down, being diagnosed with cancer.

If the federal government can step in and arbitrarily require a company to provide things for “free” that were previously elective, premium-based services, then it is no longer an insurance company. We are not buying insurance from it; we are simply participating in a mandatory government program whose features can be changed at any time, regardless of what we or the “insurers” want. There is no contract. There are only the one-sided decisions of bureaucrats and future presidents."

Well, it doesn't mean free. It means that your premium covers all of the cost instead of part of the cost with a copay making up the difference.

In most cases, for the average person, the contingency is a major personal setback of some kind

So the idea is that health insurance is primarily for major personal setbacks, right? Funny, I thought it primarily covered my physicals and blood tests, my diabetes supplies, my cholesterol medication, and arthritis pills. I take six different medications daily. I don't pay a copay for any of them. But they are not free. I pay premiums that cover the cost. "Contingencies" are covered by the risk pool. THAT'S what an insurance company does.

Seems to me that the Bill of Rights enumerates rights to individuals. Seems to me the members of the Catholic church have had no infringements of their rights. They can choose to use contraceptives of not. How does this rule impinge upon the individuals' right to freedom of religion?

Ah, Jim is one of those that believes that car insurance should pay for oil changes

Health insurance is not car insurance. That said, I could buy a maintenance plan if I chose to do so.

Are you trying to tell me that YOUR health insurance doesn't cover your annual physicals? Your OB/GYN visits? Your daily medications? Your vaccinations? Or are you suggesting that your $15 copay covers the total cost of each of those benefits and services and your premiums only cover your appendectomy, your child birth and your radiation treatments? Or do you pay $150 for each visit to the doctor?

And if you think your premiums are for basic care instead of major incidents.... Well, it explains why you support Obama.

I can see a connection. It shows I am intelligent and informed enough to understand that my health insurance premiums cover both basic care and "major incidents".

Anybody here have health insurance that only covers "major incidents"?

I am saying that. I have a low premium, high deductible plan with an HSA. There are no copayments. Then it is 80/20 after we hit the deductible. There are a few thing that the plan covers for "free" as they transition to ObummerCare, but when looking at the EOBs, came to less than $100 per person for my family of four last year. Hardly worth the extra premiums that we'll be paying in a couple years.

Did you know that ALL EMPLOYERS who provide prescription drug coverage for their employees have been required by the federal government (EEOC) to provide birth control?

Since December 2000.

More than eleven years ago. Throughout eight years of George W. Bush administrations. And nobody complained to George about it.

Isn't that a hoot!

Only difference now is that the PPACA rules require that there be no copay for birth control or any other preventative care medications. All costs must be covered by premiums. AND it provides for exemptions.

So this isn't about freedom of religion. It isn't about contraception. It's about the expense being fully covered by premiums instead of partially by copays. And it's about hating Obama.

Jim, my current interest is you, not society at large. I know that all abortions can't be stopped, not by the church, or government. Only a changing of minds, one at a time, will make any difference. You task me for using the word crime, and that it is to incite, not debate. I disagree, sir. With all our tech, how can one deny a baby in the womb is not human? And please, don't demean our discussion with a woman's natural time of the month. That's beneath you.

The child's life is ended for, many times, simply being inconvenient. As to legal, just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's right. By that logic, a woman shouldn't be upset if her husband goes to Nevada and visits a brothel. I mean, it's legal. Do you see the absurdity of the "it's legal' line?

Again, things like this are rarely changed through laws. They are changed by changing hearts and attitudes. Also, don't you see the progression? When you begin walking the path of life being cheap, the leaps to other things become smaller, and the chance to revert back to a society that cherishes life becomes smaller. Life is cheap in our world. I'm saying it shouldn't be. It starts with abortion. Where it goes from there IS up to you an I, as individuals.

Health insurance is not car insurance. That said, I could buy a maintenance plan if I chose to do so.

Isn't it great that can have this choice? Unfortunately, all choice is being taken away from us as the one-size-fits-all, had -to-pass-it-to-find-out-what's-in-it regulatory behemoth continues to grow and will make it more expensive for all of us.

There are so many factors that can be addressed in this question. Like, what is the definition of "human" vs. "a human" or "a human being". I would further challenge you that an embryo in the womb at, say 5 weeks," can be brought to term outside the womb short of Frankenstein's lab.

So I don't think the above question is pertinent.

And please, don't demean our discussion with a woman's natural time of the month. That's beneath you.

I'm not talking about "natural time of the month". I'm talking about natural termination of a pregnancy post implantation.

The child's life is ended for, many times, simply being inconvenient.

That is irrelevant. Are you going to provide any circumstance in which a family's personal decision to terminate a pregnancy is less "abhorrent" than another?

As to legal, just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's right.

I'll grant you that. Look at what happened on Wall Street.

By that logic, a woman shouldn't be upset if her husband goes to Nevada and visits a brothel.

Sorry, but that doesn't equate. There is just no way to make that an apt comparison. So I reject that the "it's legal line" is absurd. "It's legal" means "it's legal". There are lot's of things that are legal that some people think is morally wrong. Lottery? Adultery? Masturbation?

They are changed by changing hearts and attitudes. True, kind of like same-sex marriage.

I don't believe that abortion cheapens life. Denying a woman the right to make choices about her body cheapens her life. It's forced birth.

In the end I don't believe this is about "unborn children" or an embryo that is or isn't "human". It's really about people having sex outside of marriage or without the purpose of procreation. Forced birth is the price a woman pays.

Unfortunately for liberals, this position — outlined in excruciating detail by the seer of modern secular liberalism, the late John Rawls — is self-refuting. Why? Because it, ahem, privileges a legal and political commitment to relativity about moral questions. It’s the same absurdity underlying the philosophical skeptic’s claim that there’s no truth — except for the truth that there is no truth.

So, Bill, Jim's answer to your question of "humanity of fetus" is, ah, "relative." To whatever the mother and father want that particular day.

Show me, in writing, where it is public policy that birth control is required.

Who said it was?

Or that it is barred as a matter of public policy

Who said it was? Is this about the Scalia decision? You know there are principles involved in court decisions which set a guiding precedent in other cases that are not EXACTLY like the specifics of the original.

Logic eludes you, Jim.

Only the made up kind.

Seems that you're pretty smart, otherwise.

How refreshing to hear that from these pages! Thank you.

As Freud said, that 'recreational sex' of which you speak is a perversion.

Actually the perversion is the insistence that the above is true. I suppose with my wife being post menopausal, it's all over for us. Or should I make love under the delusion that if God wills it, we WILL create a child?

Ah, the Sex Nazis. "No sex for YOU!"

Billiam, pay no attention to Dadio's interpretations. Read what I said, and respond if you like. Dadio does not speak for me or "libruls" in general. He just makes up stuff.

Killing your offspring most certainly cheapens life. Just like promiscuity cheapens love. Or adultery cheapens marriage.

A woman's "choice" of what to do with her body happens before conception. And there are many, many very inexpensive options out there that can be used to prevent said conception. That doesn't mean No Sex either, but you already know that.

Once there is another human, with another body involved, it isn't all about her anymore. There is more to consider. As technology has advanced, the whole "mass of tissue" argument gets thinner and thinner, so now it is to maintain the growing child as something other than human.

Your natural miscarriage question doesn't even rise to the level of a straw man.

Jim, The humanity of the child in the womb is central. How can it not cheapen life, if it's so easy to dismiss the humanity and worthiness of a life in the womb? As to sex outside marriage, it is damaging, yet, that is a choice we all make, many times, to our detriment. You say forced birth is the price a woman pays. Death is the child's price. Again, how can this NOT cheapen life?

Or adultery cheapens marriage. Much more so than same-sex marriage ever could.

A woman's "choice" of what to do with her body happens before conception.

Not all agree with this. I don't.

And there are many, many very inexpensive options out there that can be used to prevent said conception. That doesn't mean No Sex either, but you already know that.

Not according to Dad. Sex of any kind outside of marriage for any purpose other than procreation is a perversion according to Dad.

Once there is another human...involved, it isn't all about her anymore. There is more to consider.

And I'm sure each and every woman considers every bit of that more. It's really not your business.

As technology has advanced, the whole "mass of tissue" argument gets thinner and thinner, so now it is to maintain the growing child as something other than human.

Are we raising 2-week old embryos outside the womb now? Of course not. This when the embryo is viable stuff is irrelevant. If it were then abortions would be OK with you prior to viability. But an abortion is an abortion isn't it?

Nobody denies that a human embryo is human. What is questionable is when it is a human being. This question has been around for millenia and it still is unanswered. Scalia said that embryos and fetuses are not provided the "rights" of a breathing, "walking-around" person.

You can decide for yourself. Others can decide for themselves.

Your natural miscarriage question doesn't even rise to the level of a straw man.

Of course it doesn't because it doesn't fit your argument. "As technology has advanced" is a slippery slope to "we can bring any pregnancy to term outside the womb." So it's simply convenient for you and Dad to slough off this argument.

How can it not cheapen life, if it's so easy to dismiss the humanity and worthiness of a life in the womb?

I'm sure very few women simply "dismiss the humanity of a life in the womb." I've known several women who have had abortions. Not one took it lightly. As Mom says, they had things to "consider". They considered them, weighed the choices, and then made decisions.

You and I disagree. I will not be converted to your philosophy nor you to mine. We see things in a different way, and yet I don't think any less of you or how you feel.

Believe it or not I am relatively moderate on social issues, except abortion and playing around with embryos for medical research and cloning.

As far as limits on abortion go, I'm willing to take a stepped approach. Starting with ending it for viable babies and gender selection. We'll keep going from there. But know this, the majority of young women are pro life. Good luck finding any pictures of the March for Life, but it was huge, it was enthusiastic, and it was young.

But here is Francis Kissling, Founding President of the National Abortion Federation...

We can no longer pretend the fetus is invisible. We can no longer seek to banish the state from our lives, but rather need to engage its power to improve women’s lives. We must end the fiction that an abortion at 26 weeks is no different from one at 6 weeks.These are not compromises or mere strategic concessions, they are a necessary evolution. The positions we have taken up to now are inadequate for the questions of the 21st century….The fetus is more visible than ever before, and the abortion-rights movement needs to accept its existence and its value. It may not have a right to life, and its value may not be equal to that of the pregnant woman, but ending the life of a fetus is not a morally insignificant event…. Abortion is not merely a medical matter, and there is an unintended coarseness to claiming that it is.We need to firmly and clearly reject post-viability abortions except in extreme cases….Those kinds of regulations are not anti-woman or unduly invasive. They rightly protect all of our interests in women’s health and fetal life….

Of course I feel the same. I'm trying to understand why you, and those who agree with you, think that way. I have never been able to stop asking why. I know a gal I used to date who had an abortion about 2 years after we stopped seeing each other. She was so sure at the time it was for the best. Yet, it's haunted her ever since, you know, what might have been? I'm haunted by a similar thing. It's why I want to understand.

OK, nice post. No generalizations about "libruls" and no Obama hating. I appreciate that.

As far as limits on abortion go, I'm willing to take a stepped approach.

That is sensible and I applaud that as reasonable. That said, most pro-choicers would say, "What next?" Many would compromise if it stopped there. But it never does. That's why they fight every step of the way. When they know the pro-lifers will never be satisfied, there is no incentive to compromise.

I would like to see your figures on what percent of young women are pro-life. I'm leery. And I'm leery about how many consider themselves "pro-life" but favor keeping abortion legal.

I also would submit, that in this country, the incidence of gender abortions is extremely rare and could never be proved in any case.

I would further submit that the incidence of post-viability abortions does not justify banning all of them.

As to Francis Kissling, I agree with some of it.

It may not have a right to life, and its value may not be equal to that of the pregnant woman, but ending the life of a fetus is not a morally insignificant event…

Totally agree. And I doubt that more than a few women consider an abortion as a morally insignificant event.

Abortion is not merely a medical matter, and there is an unintended coarseness to claiming that it is.

Agreed, but I believe the majority of women are capable of understanding this and making their choice based on the morals to which they subscribe.

We need to firmly and clearly reject post-viability abortions except in extreme cases

Who is to judge and who is to adjudicate what is an extreme case? I think post-viability abortions for matters of "convenience" are very rare and we shouldn't ban them all to keep a few from happening. It should be up to the patient and her doctor as to what is extreme, not a district attorney.

They rightly protect all of our interests in women’s health and fetal life

Who is "our" interests? Shouldn't it be the interests of the woman and her family?

I know a gal I used to date who had an abortion about 2 years after we stopped seeing each other. She was so sure at the time it was for the best.

I had a similar circumstance. We were together for 4 years. I know she had an abortion before we were together and I helped her when she got one a year after. It sometimes crosses my mind that it's possible she had an abortion while we were together. But I don't dwell on it. What's the point. I assume she didn't and so be it. I got married and had two great kids. She also got married and had a great kid. I doubt she considers herself scarred for life. If she hadn't had that abortion, the child she had would never have been born. If I had had a child with her, I would have missed the wonderful family that I have now. What a shame that would have been!

People often do things in that they reflect on later in life, sometimes regretting what they did, sometimes happy they made the choice they did. People should be capable of making those decisions.

Gallup doesn't have it broke out by age, but in 2010, only 45% claimed the label of "Pro Choice". But the trend has been toward Pro Life. I can tell you that from my younger sister's perspective it is because she was a post-Roe baby. She is 10 years behind the other 5 of us and our mother was in her 40s. They could have easily made that "choice" and she knows it. My own conversion came when I became pregnant with my first child.

There is no reason to kill the baby if it is viable. None.

If the child can live outside the womb, the rights of the woman to no longer be pregnant do not usurp the rights of the child to live.

As to your dismissal of killing some--you and John Donne would not get along well, either; "...each is a part of the main, a piece of the clod/ So do not ask for whom the bell tolls/ It tolls for thee."

Mom, you said that the "majority" of young women are "pro-life" but then you provide the number 45% with is not a majority and it doesn't take into account people who are "pro-life" yet think abortion should be safe and legal.

There is no reason to kill the baby if it is viable. None.

In your opinion, not everyone's.

If the child can live outside the womb, the rights of the woman to no longer be pregnant do not usurp the rights of the child to live.

And this is which section of the US Code? Or is it your opinion. It is not mine.

It is not standard "medical care" or "women's health".

Really? Ask the woman or her doctor.

It still haunts him and he believes it still haunts her.

I'm sorry for them. Not everyone has the same experience though.

sometimes we make enormous mistakes.

And sometimes we make the right decision.

Nope. There is truth, and not-truth. Not "your" truth and "my" truth.

It makes me feel so warm and fuzzy that I have YOU as arbiter of truth and not-truth.

Jim, the 45% were the pro choice folks. That would put the majority at pro life.

I find it tremendously disturbing that you find it perfectly OK to kill a viable baby in utero instead of allowing life and adoption for that child. It is a level of selfishness that I truly cannot even wrap my brain around. How can the thinking even exist that this should be an acceptable proposition.

Ooops, you're right, I should have read more closely. Still, I don't see the number for pro-life. Most polls include undecided or unsure.

Still 45% is a large block.

I find it tremendously disturbing that you find it perfectly OK to kill a viable baby in utero

I'm sorry you find it so disturbing even though I never said that.

I find it similarly disturbing that you insist that 45% or more of your fellow Americans should be bound by your experiences and beliefs and not by the law and their own convictions.

It is a level of selfishness that I truly cannot even wrap my brain around.

There are millions of children all over the world available for adoption. They may not be white, they may not be newborn, they may have troubled lives.

I find it an amazing level of selfishness that people insist that women are expected to provide fresh, newborns to people who are not willing to adopt and care for the already born. Thousands of African-American children in this country alone are waiting to be adopted. Or aren't those lives precious?

In the US the black community has actively worked to prevent white families from adopting black children out of foster care under the meme of cultural genocide. It still happens but far less frequently and it takes much longer.

Do you know what it takes to adopt a child internationally? Years, trips abroad, weeks spent in those countries, and fees of about $20k on top of all that. And now several countries have either stopped these adoptions or severely limited them. Haiti and Guatemala being two that come to mind.

I find it more disturbing that 45% of the population find it preferable to kill a viable child than to let that child live and through adoption still relieve the womb owner of the burdens of motherhood. I mean she got it to the point of viability on her own...

I find it more disturbing that 45% of the population find it preferable to kill a viable child

I'm sure you would, but I can't find anywhere that that notion is supported by research. Being pro-choice doesn't automatically determine your position on late term abortions. And I think most of them would consider the choice as terminating a pregnancy and not killing a child.

That you would even bring race into this is despicable.

Your opinion is noted. However, race, as you've pointed out, is quite relevant. There is more than one side to the trans racial adoption issue.

The anti-choice side brings race into the discussion all the time. Isn't it mostly black "babies" being aborted at Planned Parenthood? I mean, it's the eugenics, right? All those PPs placed in the black neighborhoods in order to kill off the black populations? Oh, wait, those are the people the libruls want to flourish so they'll vote Democrat. Which is it?

I find it disturbing that people would force women to give birth in order to provide babies to adoptive parents.